The Public Attorney's Office is Lawyering for the Wrong Client

There seems to be something wrong with the Public Attorney’s Office taking on the case of the PNP personnel involved in the EDSA shooting as their legal counsel.

First, the PAO’s mandate is to “Provide the indigent sector access to counsel at the time of need” and this is elaborated further in their Mission, which states, “Provide indigent litigants free access to courts, judicial and quasi-judicial agencies by rendering legal assistance in consonance with the constitutional mandate that says ‘free access to courts shall not be denied by reason of poverty’.”

The PNP personnel do not fall into the category of clients that the PAO is supposed to cater to. They are not indigents who do not have free access to the courts, judicial and quasi-judicial agencies and they are not unable to avail of the services of counsel to assist and represent them during litigation.

While some may say that a policeman’s salary prevents him from availing the services of top notch lawyers or law firms, the policemen involved in the EDSA incident are not totally defenseless.

The policemen are being accused of violations of human rights and proper rules of procedure while in the performance of their duty. The Chief Public Attorney herself concurs with this, since she is arguing that the policemen were in a legitimate police operation. If that were the case, then it is clear that the policemen should be defended by the PNP’s own Legal Service, which is primarily tasked to serve the police’s legal counsel.

In fact, the PNP Legal Service’s Mission Statement says, “To provide quality, efficient and effective legal services to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and legal assistance to its members and their legal dependents.”

Another fact is that a policeman may avail of the service of the PNP-LS even if his case is not connected to his official duty, as listed in the PNP-LS functions, which specifically says that that the PNP-LS will “Provide legal assistance and advice to PNP members and their legal dependents regardless of whether or not the legal issue arose from the official functions of the member concerned.”

In the performance of this function, the PNP-LS is not even alone. As listed in their functions, the PNP-LS will “Serves as legal counsel of the PNP. Represents the PNP and/or collaborates with the Office of the Solicitor General in all civil actions before the regular court and quasi judicial bodies where the PNP is involved or has an interest to protect.”

So it is very clear that the policemen involved in the EDSA shooting do not qualify as clients of the PAO. Ironically, it may even be the suspects, who are unfortunately now dead, who may be qualified as clients of the PAO.

Second, it is disturbing to see the Public Attorney’s Office castigate the Commission on Human Rights for performing its constitutional mandate to defend the rights especially of those who may be victims of the State’s use of power and means of violence.

The PAO’s mistaken assumption of the role as the policemen’s counsel has placed the two agencies on a collision course, while the PNP, which is responsible as an institution and equipped for the purpose to answer for their personnel’s actions stands aside and be detached from the fray.

It really disconcerting to hear the PAO even moving for the CHR to cease and desist from investigating what clearly is a question of human rights.

What the PAO needs to do is cease and desist from being the counsel of the policemen because it is not within its mandate of providing legal assistance for the indigent and deprived. The PNP is perfectly capable to legally defend itself.

What the PAO should be doing instead of taking the airwaves to defend a case that is not within its mandate is to do an inventory of the thousands of indigents who are presently rotting in jail without the benefit of counsel. The precious time of the PAO spent in media castigating the CHR is best spent in defending those are suffering incarceration and litigation without a counsel to speak in their behalf.

Farewell, FrancisM

In my nearly 40 years on this earth, few deaths, aside those of whom I know personally, have had relevance to me. I am referring to people who I have no personal connection with, people who I have not even met personally but somehow made a lasting impression on me.

It is one of the ironies in life, where sometimes people who are near you don’t have as much an impact or influence on you than someone who is so distant from you they might as well be in another planet.

Take for instance Ninoy Aquino. I never met the man nor had the chance to even see him in person while he was alive as I was still too busy with the concerns of an early teener than the affairs of the state. But his life, work and ideals have an impact embedded in my own consciousness that as I now perform my duty as a public official, I look to his ideas and principles as model for my own.

One of those whose death, but most of all, whose life, has etched a mark in my yardstick of life lessons is Francis Magalona--- the Master Rapper, The Mouth. His passing came as a reminder to me that our time on this earth is not ours to waste but is lent to us in order to contribute to the rich color of what FrancisM called the Kaleidoscope World.

We do not know when our lives will cease but we should be aware that we only have one life to live, and it is our duty, even our obligation to make that life productive and relevant. No matter what status in life we are in, we are all called upon to make full use of the time allowed us on earth.

Francis Magalona did just that. Although he has left this world at the young age of 44, it cannot be said that he lived a mediocre life. Perhaps one may even look at it as if he knew that his time on earth will not be long since he was able to make his life relevant to the world at an early age.

At an age when many have not even realized the purpose of their lives, Kiko had already distinguished himself and inspired others with his talent in performing. There are not a few in my own generation who developed their own talents because of what they saw in The Man from Manila. He gave Filipino culture a fighting chance against the onslaught of foreign pop influence, making a mark in the genre of rap, rock and hip-hop.

But he did not stop there. Taking it a step further, he used his talent to promote nationalism and Filipino pride by taking on themes which highlighted social, cultural and national issues which affected and afflicted Philippine society.

I would say that his work as an artist, which was actually a social commentary, had a profound influence in my own thinking as I was maturing during that time. Music and pop culture always has a big influence on the youth. In other countries, artists who sing about hate, racial tensions, addiction and depression contribute to the high rates of drug use, suicide, violence and spread of anarchy. But Francis’ themes of national pride and patriotism somehow kept the Filipino youth in check, and instilled in their minds and hearts the love for our country, its culture and its heritage.

Even when death seemed to catch up on him, he kept his performance level in high gear and lived a fulfilled life. In the homestretch, he still found the desire and drive to prove his love for the country and inspire others to do the same.

In yet another creative endeavor, he found a way to promote nationalism through fashion, by launching a clothing line which bore the symbols of our country, the Three Stars and a Sun.

It gave me such pleasure to see people, young people at that, proudly display the Three Stars and a Sun on their shirts, caps, keychains, etc. For me, it is a great statement of nationalism for one to be proud to wear the Three Stars and the Sun, in the same manner that Americans show their pride with the Red, White and Blue or the Stars and Stripes incorporated into designs.

Once again, Francis Magalona showed how to live the one life he was given. While we mourn his loss at a young age, I also think that we should celebrate his life which was lived not only for himself  and his family, but for a country that deserves more patriots like him.

Farewell, Francis. And Thank You!

The Impeachment of the Ombudsman---Public Interest, Not Party Politics

Attributing the impeachment case against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to the Liberal Party and former Congressman Nereus Acosta and making it appear as a partisan act is obviously an attempt to muddle the issue by politicizing the whole affair, which is actually a matter of the Ombudsman’s public accountability.

Portraying the Liberal Party as being behind the impeachment raps with only political motives to fuel it is an insult to the distinguished members of civil society who have initiated the filing of the complaint. With the exception of former Senate President Jovito Salonga who acted as head of Kilosbayan and Bantay Katarungan, those who filed the complaint do not belong to the LP and they acted on their civic duty and conscience to hold the Ombudsman accountable for what they see as failures of the one tasked to go after corrupt government officials.

While members of the Liberal Party have spoken out in support of the complaint, it s not because of partisan interest but in pursuit of the public interest in the cases that were mentioned in the complaint. It may be in line with the party’s principles of transparency, accountability and oversight, but definitely it is not for political gain.

In fact, those who speak in favor of the impeachment complaint may even be subject severe backlash and retaliation such as the case of former Congressman Nereus Acosta whose case was suddenly brought forth to the public attention after leaders of the LP put the Ombudsman to task for not acting swiftly on celebrated cases which involved allies of the administration.

The Liberal Party members, particularly those in the House of Representatives, are still in the process of individual assessment of the complaint, since they will cast their vote as individuals in the impeachment process.

It is consistency with party principles, not partisan persuasions, which compel LP members to speak out and seek answers to the charges filed against the Ombudsman. It is public interest, not political favor, which the party looks after in its position not only on this case, but in all issues it confronts.

In the face of attempts to confuse the people in this issue, what the public should understand and focus on is that this affair is not a political swordfight and partisan maneuvering but instead, it is about the people exacting accountability from an official who was tasked by the Constitution to go after violators of the law.  

The Philippines Vs. the Superpowers : Upholding Sovereignty

Article II, Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.

Sovereignty. The very essence of being an independent nation.

Two issues confront the Philippines which will put to the test how we uphold and defend our nation’s sovereignty. Both will bring us on a collision course with the two Superpowers of the World and how our country’s leaders will decide on the matter will show how much we really value our sovereignty.

We are now facing a curious situation where the three branches of government, prescribed by our Constitution as co-equals, will be pitted against each other on a matter that would probably benefit a foreign nation.

The first is the case of Mr. Smith. Daniel Smith. Or more accurately, United States Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, who was convicted of raping a Filipina and is now serving sentence in a room inside the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

His incarceration in a U.S. facility sparked objections and protests from nationalists and ordinary Filipino citizens who believed that the marine should have been imprisoned in the same prison where Filipinos convicted of the same crime are sent to serve their sentence.  But the people’s protests fell on deaf ears and everyone was witness to how the Department of Interior and Local Government spirited Smith out of detention and delivered him safely to the U.S. Embassy.

Several years have passed and people seem to have forgotten about Smith. Now comes a Supreme Court decision which says that convict Smith should be incarcerated under Philippine authorities.  The highest court of the land instructed the government to renegotiate with the United States for the transfer of Smith to Philippine custody.

What is noticeable is that the Philippine government seems to be dragging its feet on this Supreme Court decision, even to the point of appearing to be siding with the Americans.  One would expect that the government, which is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, will act in full consonance and wilfull compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court. That does not seem to be the case.

In fact, one suggestion from a high administration official, which seems to be more of an insult to the Constitution and the sovereign Filipino people than an effort to propose a solution, was that Smith could be detained in the Philippine Embassy in the United States.  The official said that it would still comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. Technically yes, it might comply, but doesn’t it smack of intellectual dishonesty since such an act is obviously not in the spirit of sovereignty?

On the other hand, the same government is trying to puff and beat its chest like a gorilla in the face of the People’s Republic of China’s protest against the Philippine Baselines Bill which outlines the territorial boundaries of the Philippines.

By an act of Congress, another co-equal branch of government, the country’s boundaries were prescribed by the Baselines Bill (soon to be the Baselines Law) in compliance to the requirement of the country’s being a  signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

After the bill was passed by the Senate and House of Representatives and is now ready for the signature of the President, China expressed its objection and even summoned the Philippine Charge d’Affairs to explain the matter, an act which is actually a diplomatic flexing of muscles to assert sovereignty.

In contrast to its actuations with regard to the Smith case, the Executive Branch this time gave an appearance of upholding Philippine sovereignty by stressing that the President will sign the bill into law inspite of protests by China.

Conveniently forgetting its lackluster defense of sovereignty against the Americans, the government boasted that it will stand up to China’s protests because the Baseline bill is an issue of sovereignty. Empty boasts, double standards, hypocrisy. Call it by different names, but one thing is clear---Article II, Section 7 of the Constitution is inconsistently upheld.

Philippine sovereignty is absolute. The Constitution says so. Therefore, government has the obligation and the duty to defend the country’s sovereignty, no matter against who.  We should defend and uphold it against China and the United States, even if they are the world’s superpowers.  

The Democracy We Love So Dear

I am sure that if I say that Filipinos love their freedom and democracy like they love their own family, no one will raise a howl of protest.

To that, there is no debate. But will everyone also agree with the statement that if we love our democracy like we love our family, then it follows that just like what we sometimes do with our family, we take democracy for granted?

If we can take our family for granted once in a while, more so democracy, right? If we set aside hypocrisy, I am pretty sure that everyone of us has been guilty of taking our family for granted at some point in our life.

I will admit to that. For example, when I prioritized an invitation by one of my constituents over the desire of my sons to bring them to the mall on a weekend, I was guilty of taking them for granted. When I immediately responded to a text message of a voter while I forget to reply to one sent by my wife, I took her for granted. When I joined the funeral caravan of one of my supporters who died and yet I don’t regularly visit my mother who is alive and well, I was once again guilty of taking her for granted.  

I can justify myself by saying that it was all part of my work as a public official representing a particular constituency. After all, they elected me into office. But while I have a public duty to be available for my constituents, I have a personal obligation to my family who did not elect me into my position as father, husband or son, but it is an obligation that is bound by blood and in the case of my wife, my conscious and willful decision to dedicate my life to her.

Terms of public office have an ending. My relationship with my family does not. Even after my eventual death, they will continue to be my family. So taking them for granted is not justifiable. The only worse offense is denying that we take them for granted.

Going back to the opening statement, if we are guilty of taking our family for granted, what more our freedom and democracy?

Perhaps the average Filipino will never realize and admit that especially if he/she does not know how it feels to be deprived of liberty and rights. Especially the younger generation who were not able to experience the Japanese occupation in World War 2 or the dark days of Martial Law under the Marcos dictatorship.

I came to reflect about this while attending a seminar here in Germany where the air is clean and clear, the sights are awesome and the atmosphere is friendly because in our discussions about political communication, the experiences shared by my fellow attendees led me to think about the situation in my own country.

Not that it is the first time I’ve heard about the situation in Myanmar, Cambodia, China or even Palestine. My attendance of many international conferences have given me insights about the situations in other countries much more than what one can get from the news, especially because these insights are actual experiences of people living in those countries.

But being away from my family and missing them and being out of the country and missing it, plus hearing the experience of others in a less than ideal state of liberty compelled me to deliver a message to those who care to receive it.

In one of the sessions of the seminar I am presently attending, we were organized into collective interests of the countries in our region. Our group was composed of the Philippines, China, Myanmar, Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Malaysia.

In our group’s discussions, we talked about the situations in our respective countries, particularly the state of freedom and democracy, this whole seminar being an activity of organizations and political parties of liberal ideology.

As the members of our group shared stories about the lack of press freedom, the stifling of freedom of expression of individuals, the suppression of the freedom of association, the distortion or even absence of the right of suffrage, and many other stories of the democracy being trampled upon by government itself, I looked back to my country and, with a prayer of thanks, felt relieved that the Philippines is not in a similar condition.

While the high levels of corruption and bad governance is present in all countries, the personal liberties in the Philippines is much more protected and exercised compared to other countries.

While we in the Philippines complain about newspapers being biased one way or the other and broadcast networks slug it out for market share and advertising, in other countries, the press and broadcast are controlled by the state and the information that comes out are only those which the state wants the people to know. Of course, all of that would be government propaganda. 

While in the Philippines homeowners association bicker among themselves, in other countries, three people could not even assemble to discuss the fate of their neighborhood.

While Filipinos buy and sell votes, others pay with their lives just to fight for the right to cast their ballot or even just to have elections at all.

It is good to be exposed to the conditions of other countries. It gives one the insight and perspective of what is present and absent in one’s own country, in the context of living in a global community.

During these times leading to the elections of 2010, Filipinos are quite pre-occupied with the elections as an event instead of it being an opportunity for charting the destiny of our country.

Politicians and political parties are busy organizing for their campaigns and concocting gimmicks to get the support of the voters. The people are all looking for a “Filipino Obama”, inspired by the success of President Obama’s campaign.

But perhaps, we should all step back and ask ourselves…what are we fighting for in this political battle? Is it just to gain power? Is it to put into office someone who cleverly presents himself as our savior?

In the frenzy of pre-election period, we should all step back and return to familiarizing ourselves with the ideals and aspirations we have as a nation. We should rekindle our passion for the basic principles that binds us a free nation. It is time to reflect on the things we have taken for granted these past years.

Many are being mesmerized by dazzle of President Obama’s victory in the US elections. Many are now looking for a Filipino Obama. Some have even insinuated they are the Filipino Obama. We are falling into the trap of hero worship and messianic mindsets.

But as I have said before, President Obama did not win by himself. It is foolish to think that he is a superhuman and that it would be possible to imitate his success just by imitating his persona, adopting his campaign plan and “doing an Obama”.

What the Filipino people should do is “do an America”.

What many fail to realize is that Obama won because the American people chose the candidate who reflected the ideals, principles and aspirations that they themselves had. Sure, Obama is an eloquent and convincing speaker, has a charming personality and good campaign plans.

But what we Filipinos fail to appreciate is that the American people hold other things more dear to them than the persona of a candidate and his campaign plan. Many other candidates in US elections have presented those qualities but were unsuccessful, but those who reflected the ideals of the Americans as a nation were the ones chosen by the American people.

President Obama himself knew that, and that’s how he got the support of the people. He always said that his candidacy was not about him but about the American people. In his book, he wrote that in response to cynical comments he told people that,

“….there is another tradition to politics, a tradition that stretched from the days of the country’s founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done.” 

Note that he reminded people of the basic ideals that they have as a nation, ideals that are carried over generation after generation. He did not present himself as a savior, rather he encouraged the people to take action themselves.

In the Philippines, we seem to have set aside the ideals we should hold so dear. We tend to look at personalities, the patron who would answer for all out needs. This is evidenced by people who keep on saying “we need a Filipino Obama” for change to happen.

Leaders, especially those who have an interest in assuming power in 2010, present themselves as the key to the problems of the country. Relying heavily in marketing themselves and putting the best face or foot forward, they fail to recognize and acknowledge that change comes from the people, not just from themselves.

The time for a new beginning for the Philippines is near. But if we want to be successful in achieving genuine change, we should not take for granted the country’s fundamental values and ideals. That is one thing that binds us all. While we have many dialects, ethnicity, traditions, cultures and political leanings, we all have something in common----the desire for freedom and democracy, the aspirations for the fulfillment of individual dreams and the values that are unique to us.

For the change we are hoping for in 2010, let’s not look for someone who will “do an Obama”. Let’s “do an America”.